Djokovic

All would be number one with the same amount of points

But we're not talking ANY matchup here, we're talking Fed vs Nadal if they were the same age. It's quite clear Nadal would have pushed Fed to a 5th set most of the time and given Fed's record there... Nadal would have pulled the victory off most of the time.

But we're not talking ANY matchup here, we're talking Fed vs Nadal if they were the same age. It's quite clear Nadal would have pushed Fed to a 5th set most of the time and given Fed's record there... Nadal would have pulled the victory off most of the time.

But we're not talking ANY matchup here, we're talking Fed vs Nadal if they were the same age. It's quite clear Nadal would have pushed Fed to a 5th set most of the time and given Fed's record there... Nadal would have pulled the victory off most of the time.

Click to expand...

So if past prime grandpa Fed can nearly beat Djoker, how can you say prime Nadal who loses to Djoker can take Fed to 5 sets?

But we're not talking ANY matchup here, we're talking Fed vs Nadal if they were the same age. It's quite clear Nadal would have pushed Fed to a 5th set most of the time and given Fed's record there... Nadal would have pulled the victory off most of the time.

Click to expand...

It's all hypothetical, you can't say this would have happened. It's a possibility but there are other possibilities too.

It could be a case of Federer losing many 5th sets due to not playing his best but still being good enough to get 2 sets off his opponent. Of course when he was playing near his best he wiped most people out in straights so there was no need to win a 5th set. Nadal could push him to 5 but if he is playing his best Federer could still win a 5th set. I mean he did at Wimbeldon 2007 and Nadal was pretty much as good that year as he was in 2008, there was only a slight shift in form the following year (I actually think Nadal and Federer played a tighter match in 2007, 2008 was more dramatic with both players playing great some points and choking the next point)

And there is no evidence to say Nadal would always take Federer to a 5th set. The only thing I base my feelings on is that Nadal at his best at Wimbledon 2008 still had to battle against Federer who was having a bit of a rough time and was there for the taking, and at AO Federer was declining a bit and Nadal was being outplayed for a fair amount of time, and he did play some of his best hardcourt tennis that year. So I think a prime Federer would have a slight edge over Nadal on hard. As it is they have an even H2H on hardcourt and that's from Federer's prime/nadal pre prime, to Nadal prime/Federer post prime (although admittedly a small number of meetings considering the time span)

Another factor is if Federer was making finals in quick time and Nadal was battling in some matches that could make a difference against a prime Federer.

Between the age of 18 and 22, Nadal would have been head and shoulders ahead of Fed. So you're right, there wouldn't have been any 5 setters because Rafa would have swept Fed off the court in straights. After that Fed would have got better but he would have lacked confidence against Rafa, that's why I think at best Fed would have managed a 5th set (Rafa has enough talent and stamina not to go away easily vs Fed) and in a 5th the stats say Fed would have lost more often than not.

Between the age of 18 and 22, Nadal would have been head and shoulders ahead of Fed. So you're right, there wouldn't have been any 5 setters because Rafa would have swept Fed off the court in straights. After that Fed would have got better but he would have lacked confidence against Rafa, that's why I think at best Fed would have managed a 5th set (Rafa has enough talent and stamina not to go away easily vs Fed) and in a 5th the stats say Fed would have lost more often than not.

Click to expand...

between 18 and 22, Federer would have probabaly not made enough finals to even lose to Nadal. What we get is a reverse situation (although Nadal would have barely made any HC finals himself). Then when Federer becomes a great player he is now also the underdog to Nadal and Nadal has all the pressure. We've seen Nadal finally in this posistion against Djokovic this year and it's a fact that it puts pressure on you when you're at the top and someone challenges YOU.

Quite funny that you get all annoyed because I suggest that on one surface Federer would have a slight edge, if you want to believe Rafa is better on all surfaces go ahead. I, unlike you am not drawing any definite conclusions, but the fact is Nadal never beat Federer at Wimbledon on grass til Federer had won 5 of his 6 titles and was going for a record breaking 6th in a row, and never beat him at a hardcourt major until Federer had won 8 of 9 hardcourt majors. Both times Nadal was near enough at his best on those surfaces against a guy who had won the vast majority of his titles, and he just about managed to do it. Not saying Federer would have blasted Nadal off the court in his prime, but concluding that Federer would have been always taken to 5 and lost every time is total nonsense.

Like I said he won wimbledon 2007 in a 5th set where Nadal was near to his best on grass. Out of the matches they played that went to 5 sets, I think Nadal has a 3-1 lead. 1 on clay in a 5th set tiebreak, so not even applicable to 3 of the 4 slams, the other two when Nadal was near to his best and Federer was on the slide. Results are just a bit inconclusive to draw any definite answers. 3-1 is still a narror lead in my opinion beacuse it's only a one match swing from 2-2 and the Rome 2006 final was a final set tiebreak, and Federer had matchpoints, anything could happen, a bad bounce, a doublefault. It's too slim to claim Nadal would always win.

Yeah but saying Federer is better in 5 set matches doesn't mean he is the best IN A 5th SET. Slams motivate Federer more, they just happen to be best of 5. Masters finals were best of 5 too, but were still not as highly prized as a slam match. It's not always the length of the match, it's the prestige that the 5 sets signifies.

So it's not that Federer would have won in a 5th set, but that he would be more motivated and play better in a slam or masters 5 set match compared to a 250 point 3 set final, and thus it might not have gone to a 5th.

And just because he has a bad 5 set record, doesn't mean he'd always lose the 5th - the only time a Nadal/Federer match has been won from 2 sets down was when Federer did so. Nadal actually looked spent. In 2009 it was Federer who was at least mentally spent, but when Federer was in his prime and Nadal short of it, could have been the other way around.

Click to expand...

So basically Federer and Nadal on non clay surfaces would be quite competitive with both in their primes, while Nadal would have the considerable edge on clay. That is basically what some of us are saying, and that would suggest Nadal > Federer in just the head to head matchup alone. Of course there is more to who wins then the head to head matchup. Nadal can lose to alot more players on all hard courts especialy than Federer, and would do so even in his prime.

So basically Federer and Nadal on non clay surfaces would be quite competitive with both in their primes, while Nadal would have the considerable edge on clay. That is basically what some of us are saying, and that would suggest Nadal > Federer in just the head to head matchup alone. Of course there is more to who wins then the head to head matchup. Nadal can lose to alot more players on all hard courts especialy than Federer, and would do so even in his prime.

Click to expand...

Yeah on clay Nadal has a massive edge, although the way he played this year at RG, if he keeps playing like that in future years, Federer might have got the chance to play him a few times later on and get some wins. In fact I think Federer would have avoided Nadal on clay more times in Nadal's best years since Federer didn't become that consistant on clay til he was 24/25. so If Nadal is declining on clay at 25 then Federer probabaly would have played him at a much better time for him and not have such a bad clay H2H.

At worst I give Federer a fairly even H2H on hard, but it's a big guess especially as they've never even played at the US Open. At the same age he might have lost the first slam meeting on hardcourt to Nadal, but it's hard to say because sometimes Nadal is unbeatable and othertimes he's there for the taking.What would have been interesting is Federer coming up and playing Nadal in a quarter final or 4th round.Probabaly would have been Nadal's but earlier on Nadal did have his off days.

So Nadal might still have a leading H2H but not massive thanks to Federer not making that many clay finals in Nadal's prime, but making HC finals at the same time Nadal does.

Yeah on clay Nadal has a massive edge, although the way he played this year at RG, if he keeps playing like that in future years, Federer might have got the chance to play him a few times later on and get some wins. In fact I think Federer would have avoided Nadal on clay more times in Nadal's best years since Federer didn't become that consistant on clay til he was 24/25. so If Nadal is declining on clay at 25 then Federer probabaly would have played him at a much better time for him and not have such a bad clay H2H.

At worst I give Federer a fairly even H2H on hard, but it's a big guess especially as they've never even played at the US Open. At the same age he might have lost the first slam meeting on hardcourt to Nadal, but it's hard to say because sometimes Nadal is unbeatable and othertimes he's there for the taking.What would have been interesting is Federer coming up and playing Nadal in a quarter final or 4th round.Probabaly would have been Nadal's but earlier on Nadal did have his off days.

So Nadal might still have a leading H2H but not massive thanks to Federer not making that many clay finals in Nadal's prime, but making HC finals at the same time Nadal does.

Click to expand...

That sounds reasonable enough. As for Nadal 25+ on clay it is too soon to tell at this point.

Now according to ****s Nadal "struggled" with Federer on clay, ROTFL, ****ism knows no bounds. What about Federer whose peak was from 04-06 where he lost 2 out of 3 outdoor hard court matches to a 17-19 year old and was 2 points from a 3 straight set loss in the only win; where he was owned by Nadal everytime out on clay; and when he was one bad serve game from Nadal from going down 2 sets to 1 vs a green Nadal who was just starting to learn to play on grass in the Wimbledon final.

Click to expand...

You call rome 2006 ownage?

Can I have some of your crazy, I have too much sanity for my own good compared to you.

But Fed wouldn't have made the #2 ranking in those years, so he would have had plenty of opportunities to lose to Rafa in earlier rounds.

Click to expand...

That's true, it could have happened like that. I still think less though, especially as he'd have Djokovic to contend with as well who was good on clay from 19/20 years old.

when Federer was 19 (2001 lets say) he had a pretty good clay season, a run to the quarters of RG and monte carlo, maybe he plays Nadal a couple of times. The next year he wins Hamburg which Nadal never played early on but lost first round of RG and Rome and won 1 match in MC, so unlikely to play Nadal. Next year gets to the final of Rome so must play Nadal, but is now in the top 5 so has to get to at least quarters to meet him elsewhere and the next year again Hamburg is the only place Federer does well.

Obviously this isn't exact because it depends on whether we make Nadal and Djokovic older, putting making them 30 NOW, or make Federer younger and playing in today's field. But I don't think Federer would meet Nadal as many times as he has on clay. At 19 he could have met him a few times, but at 20 he was hopeless apart from Hamburg (so depends if Nadal played it or not) and at 21 Federer would be having to make the quarters

Federer from age 18-21 would regularly lose to Nadal on all surfaces, not just clay. I forgot to even factor in how weak (relatively) Federer was those years into a hypothetical head to head actually. Nadal being the same age would build such a big lead during Federers pre prime years that his overall head to head might be even more decisive than the current one. To put it into perspective Federer ended 2002 aged 21 ranked #6 in the World. He ended 2001 aged 20 ranked #13 in the World. He did not even get past the round of 16 of a hard court slam until aged 22, did not win a Masters title on hard courts until age 22, and did not get past the round of 16 of the U.S Open until age 23, so Nadal at those ages was having clearly superior results even on hard courts, despite his own sucky (relatively) hard court slam results for awhile. Then when you factor in the unfavorable matchup aspect, well 18-21 year old Federer would not want to play 18-21 year old Nadal anywhere.

Federer from age 18-21 would regularly lose to Nadal on all surfaces, not just clay. I forgot to even factor in how weak (relatively) Federer was those years into a hypothetical head to head actually. Nadal being the same age would build such a big lead during Federers pre prime years that his overall head to head might be even more decisive than the current one. To put it into perspective Federer ended 2002 aged 21 ranked #6 in the World. He ended 2001 aged 20 ranked #13 in the World. He did not even get past the round of 16 of a hard court slam until aged 22, did not win a Masters title on hard courts until age 22, and did not get past the round of 16 of the U.S Open until age 23, so Nadal at those ages was having clearly superior results even on hard courts, despite his own sucky (relatively) hard court slam results for awhile. Then when you factor in the unfavorable matchup aspect, well 18-21 year old Federer would not want to play 18-21 year old Nadal anywhere.

Click to expand...

That assumes Federer would even meet Nadal. Doubt he would given his results. But hey let's keep brushing over the fact Nadal's style is dependent upon fitness and athletic ability and Federer's is an attacking game which takes more time to develop.

Well there are a fair few posters who don't like any of the top 4 today, I consider them to be neutral. Ofcourse they don't post often in these part of the forums since it's ridiculously difficult to have a rational discussion without the excessive use of hyperbole, e.g. so and so demolished player Y, never mind that it was a 5 set match or anything etc etc.

There is no need to go back 50 years, and I don’t believe that slower conditions (humoring for a moment the notion that they are a lot slower now) should be a hindrance to longevity. If anything, I might believe the exact opposite. Long term stamina does not go down appreciably at 30, and in many cases it may even increase with respect to early 20s, which is why endurance sports like marathon running and cycling often feature 30+ year old athletes doing very well. It is reaction time and reflexes that go down first, and these are much more necessary in faster conditions than in slower ones. Vilas continued playing with some success until his mid 30s, almost exclusively on clay, the slower the better. And in the early 90s you may still remember Lendl at the age of 32 beating none other than Bruguera on clay, but also occasionally beating guys like Becker, Edberg or Sampras at 30 and 31 on faster surfaces. Or Connors still playing on tour into his 40s. Or Sampras winning the USO a few months before his 31st birthday. That wasn’t 50 years ago. These are just examples I can think of right away, I am sure if you dig into tennis records you will find plenty of other examples to conclude that a 30 year old tennis player is often perfectly capable of beating younger players ranked above him.

Click to expand...

You can find isolated examples of 30+ year old playing great but overall you'd have to go as far as 1969 to find a (relatively early blooming) tennis great who was playing at a level comparable to his youth for a substantial period of time, not a few tourneys/matches in a year.

Also I don't give a crap whatsoever how cyclicst, marathon runners etc. do in their 30s (and beyond), why should I base my expectations of how a given tennis player would do at the age of 29-30 on how cyclist and marathons do at such an age when I have plenty of examples from you know tennis to draw conclusions from and make comparisons to.

In what sense the game is slower today is also unclear to me, considering that players are dealing with balls that come at them a lot faster than they did in, say, 1970. Would the 30 year olds today do better if the courts and the balls further enhanced the effect of the much harder hitting we see today?

Click to expand...

The conditions today are slower and tougher on the body than they were in 1970, again:

-Most tournaments today are on played HC which has been slowed down considerably, can you think of any surface more damaging/grueling to players than a slooow HC? A medium-fast HC is a different matter entirely as the points are usually short but

-Carpet is out as a surface

-Grass has been slowed down

-They use heavier balls

So basically you have CC style long drawn out rallies (no first strike tennis, no serve and volley, no short rallies etc.) on freakin HC for most of the year, if that isn't a recipe for disaster to player's bodies then I don't know what is.

Could 2011 Federer beat 2006 Federer? Not very often, but sometimes. Maybe 20-25 percent of the time. It should be clear I am not speaking of any frozen version at a particular level of play, but of any random version of a player taken on a random day in 2011 and 2006, which is how real tennis matches are played. They are not played between idealized versions of players.

Click to expand...

I'd wager 2011 would beat 2006 Federer 10-15% of the time since he would be playing a better version of himself which can be one of the most lopsided match-ups in tennis (like say Becker-Sampras when Pete came into his own).

Again, I agree that Fed can still play great tennis occasionaly but these days he struggles to keep up his level not just from tourney to tourney but heck in the same match from set to set.

And that is why no sweeping conclusions can be drawn from the fact that this player at this age, on a given day, had match points or beat another player at another age, if only because this player at this age could also beat himself at another age, on a given day, as we all know.

Click to expand...

I didn't draw a sweeping conclusion, as I said too many variables come into play in any given match, especially matches between top players.

I claimed however that if a 30 year old Fed beat Novak in a slam match and had MPs in another one then saying that a 24-25 year old Fed wouldn't stand a chance against a 24-25 year old Novak is beyond stupid, I still strongly maintain that.

The other notion, the one that assumes tennis spent about 100 years in paleolithic prehistory and then underwent a sudden technological transformation, coupled with a kind of mutation of human physical capabilities that changed its essence and makes it impossible for 30 year olds to remain competitive, is also something I have a hard time understanding, but that is a different topic, on a par with many other bizarre but widespread beliefs, like the belief that human beings today are vastly more intelligent than, say, 300 years ago.

Click to expand...

That never was my argument, I said conditions have changed not what it takes to succeed in pro tennis. If Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, Mcenroe, Borg etc. grew up today(in modern tennis) I could see all of them being mutliple slam winners, reaching #1 etc. With their talent/skill/dedication/mental strength they would have been great in any era they grew up in.

However do I think they could play at such a high level in 30 and beyond as they did (Laver winning a Calendar Grand slam and Pancho being competitive into almost his 40s? IMO no, modern tennis is just too grueling to allow that kind of longevity.

So basically you're just agreeing with what Zagor said. Yes, Federer at 30 is capable of beating good players. He's got alot of experience, a truck load of weapons still, and a little chip on his shoulder. The biggest difference between Federer at 30 and 25 is not really his level of play, but how long he can sustain that level of play. I think that's what alot of people are missing.

Click to expand...

I think it’s mostly the frequency with which he can do it. The fact that he can do it is not in question.

It’s no coincidence that pretty much any past decade you wish to examine, many of the number one players in it were able to win slams at 30 or older. As recently as the 90s, most of the main number ones in that decade (Lendl, Sampras, Agassi) were able to accomplish exactly that. In the case of Lendl, he was still ranked number one at 30 (in 1990), and still playing like this at 32 against top players in their prime:

The fallacy consists in saying: "If player A, at 30+, can do this and that to player B in his prime, imagine what he would have done at 26. He would have crushed him!"

In many cases the theory cannot be checked and goes happily unchallenged. But when it can be checked, it very often fails. We have matches from Lendl's primiest prime against babyish Becker that disprove it. The conclusion is that the ‘grandpa’ player, in many of these cases, must have been playing as well (or better) than he did in his prime, and therefore he was no grandpa at all.

So basically Federer and Nadal on non clay surfaces would be quite competitive with both in their primes, while Nadal would have the considerable edge on clay. That is basically what some of us are saying, and that would suggest Nadal > Federer in just the head to head matchup alone. Of course there is more to who wins then the head to head matchup. Nadal can lose to alot more players on all hard courts especialy than Federer, and would do so even in his prime.

Click to expand...

I definitely also agree with this, however there's one issue I'd like to adress that I think no one did here. Most of Nadal's wins over Fed on HC came in Miami and it's such a specific surface that I'd even go as far as to say that it might even be worse for Fed to play Nadal than clay.

I know you might consider it to be a stretch but let's look at their matches there, two of Nadal wins in Miami over Fed were beatdowns and third one was supposed to be one before a miraculous come back from the dead for Roger. Let's imagine for a moment that 2005 Miami final wasn't a best of five(like it isn't today), that would be 3 straight set beatdowns Nadal gave Fed there out of 3 matches played.

I mean even this year look at how Fed faired against Nadal in Miami compared to Madrid(I know not the best example considering you could make a similar argument for it) and RG(better example).

Of course that has no relation to Dubai match (reasonably fast HC) which was a big win for Nadal considering all the circumstances.

You can find isolated examples of 30+ year old playing great but overall you'd have to go as far as 1969 to find a (relatively early blooming) tennis great who was playing at a level comparable to his youth for a substantial period of time, not a few tourneys/matches in a year.

Also I don't give a crap whatsoever how cyclicst, marathon runners etc. do in their 30s (and beyond), why should I base my expectations of how a given tennis player would do at the age of 29-30 on how cyclist and marathons do at such an age when I have plenty of examples from you know tennis to draw conclusions from and make comparisons to.
.

Click to expand...

I don’t know what you mean by isolated examples, when it is clear we are talking about the very top players in each period, the great ones, because they are the only ones whose game was great enough that when they are able to recall it at a later age, they can still beat anyone with it. If a 30 year old player who never made it to the top 10 happens to play some matches as well as he did in his prime, that's unlikely to draw much notice.

You pick 1969 as the last time these things happened. Well, the big dominant names in tennis since 1969 up until the arrival of Federer -- the great ones -- could be listed as: Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer.

Borg and Mac burned out for various reasons around the age of 25. Fine. How about the others?

If you are going to argue that today’s appallingly slow conditions create an endurance problem for 30 year old players, you must not dismiss as “crap” indications that stamina/endurance is not a problem at that age, even if they come from outside of tennis.

Sometimes player’s comments also help. Lendl retired at 34 with back problems. In an interview a few years ago, he explained the aging process in tennis, and what he says makes a lot of sense:

In tennis, as you get older, it’s not that you lose the straight-line speed or the stamina - the stamina actually gets better - it’s the agility of turning [you lose] and agility was starting to go. A split-of-a-second late here, two splits there and the point is gone. And you can’t do anything about it. There is nowhere to hide.

Click to expand...

Now, basic common sense suggests that agility becomes more important on faster surfaces. And stamina becomes more important on slower surfaces. But maybe for you it is the opposite.

So the Big Modern Slow Down, if true, should favor stamina over agility. Therefore, the Big Modern Slow Down should not be invoked as a recent physical impediment to players in their late 20s early 30s.

I repeat, there is no significant decrease in stamina at 30, and there is evidence it may be higher than in the early 20s.

I claimed however that if a 30 year old Fed beat Novak in a slam match and had MPs in another one then saying that a 24-25 year old Fed wouldn't stand a chance against a 24-25 year old Novak is beyond stupid, I still strongly maintain that.

Click to expand...

Definitely, if someone did say that, it is indeed far beyond stupid; in fact I would consider it obvious trolling not even worth responding to. (For the record, I think 24 year old Federer would win at least 60% of his matches against 24 year old Djokovic.)

But what prompted me to respond to you earlier was the pretty sweeping claim you yourself made that 2005 Federer would "clean the court", or some such words, with his current version, which is in fact the same as saying that current Federer wouldn't stand a chance against his old self. That statement I strongly disagree with. In my mind, current Federer still stands a clear, realistic chance against any player who ever played the game, including any older version of himself. He is still a threat in every major, not only because he is Federer but also because he is only 30, and I don't mean the only sarcastically at all. I mean it seriously. He is not a grandpa in any sense as you call him. Maybe by the time he is 35 or 40 I would agree with your statement. But not quite yet.

That assumes Federer would even meet Nadal. Doubt he would given his results. But hey let's keep brushing over the fact Nadal's style is dependent upon fitness and athletic ability and Federer's is an attacking game which takes more time to develop.

Click to expand...

This was my point. Federer's rise to being a regular tournament winner was actually a fairly sudden thing. Before that his performances were patchy. On clay after some initial promise with a good run in RG (first slam he reached quarters of) he became pretty dire until after he had won a few slams and reached number one (except for Hamburg where he seemed to do well) On hardcourt he was patchy but so was Nadal so given how for years and even now Nadal and Federer hardly ever meet in a hardcourt tournament (it got to a point where if both were in seperate semi and the first semi resulted in one of them winning, you could put money on the other guy losing) they might not have met very often. And when Federer get's into the top 8 then he needs to make quarters to play anyone in the top 5.

Between the age of 18 and 22, Nadal would have been head and shoulders ahead of Fed. So you're right, there wouldn't have been any 5 setters because Rafa would have swept Fed off the court in straights. After that Fed would have got better but he would have lacked confidence against Rafa, that's why I think at best Fed would have managed a 5th set (Rafa has enough talent and stamina not to go away easily vs Fed) and in a 5th the stats say Fed would have lost more often than not.

Click to expand...

Federer would lack confidence? What a joke. Remember Federer being once 2-7 in the h2h against Hewitt or 0-5 against Nalbandian? Or 1-6 against Henman? Or....?

I don’t know what you mean by isolated examples, when it is clear we are talking about the very top players in each period, the great ones, because they are the only ones whose game was great enough that when they are able to recall it at a later age, they can still beat anyone with it. If a 30 year old player who never made it to the top 10 happens to play some matches as well as he did in his prime, that's unlikely to draw much notice.

You pick 1969 as the last time these things happened. Well, the big dominant names in tennis since 1969 up until the arrival of Federer -- the great ones -- could be listed as: Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer.

Borg and Mac burned out for various reasons around the age of 25. Fine. How about the others?

If you are going to argue that today’s appallingly slow conditions create an endurance problem for 30 year old players, you must not dismiss as “crap” indications that stamina/endurance is not a problem at that age, even if they come from outside of tennis.

Sometimes player’s comments also help. Lendl retired at 34 with back problems. In an interview a few years ago, he explained the aging process in tennis, and what he says makes a lot of sense:

Now, basic common sense suggests that agility becomes more important on faster surfaces. And stamina becomes more important on slower surfaces. But maybe for you it is the opposite.

So the Big Modern Slow Down, if true, should favor stamina over agility. Therefore, the Big Modern Slow Down should not be invoked as a recent physical impediment to players in their late 20s early 30s.

I repeat, there is no significant decrease in stamina at 30, and there is evidence it may be higher than in the early 20s.

Click to expand...

I didn't mention stamina specifically, I said they(all time tennis greats) have a hard time sustaining their highest level of play which is why they cease to be a dominant force in the first place, of course the field catches up but I was never the one to buy the constant evolution of the game, when they reach a certain age tennis greats begin to decline in various areas of their game and no amount of "experience" (which has grossly exaggarted importance when it comes to tennis) can make up for a decline of phyiscal skills.

It's not about stamina, or fitness or just about being 30(although I do think a 30 year old player is gonna have a harder time recovering from a tough match than a 25 year old) but rather what it's really about is mileage. Most tennis greats start to have their success relatively early and by the time they're 30 the wear and tear is very significant and more so than ever before in the modern slow era as you have to engage in gruelling rallies on every surface there is, even with advances in modern nutrition and medicine I predict that if they continue with this slowing down and homogenization of the game we'll see fewer and fewer 27-28 year old slam winners let alone 30 year old ones.

Definitely, if someone did say that, it is indeed far beyond stupid; in fact I would consider it obvious trolling not even worth responding to. (For the record, I think 24 year old Federer would win at least 60% of his matches against 24 year old Djokovic.)

But what prompted me to respond to you earlier was the pretty sweeping claim you yourself made that 2005 Federer would "clean the court", or some such words, with his current version, which is in fact the same as saying that current Federer wouldn't stand a chance against his old self. That statement I strongly disagree with. In my mind, current Federer still stands a clear, realistic chance against any player who ever played the game, including any older version of himself. He is still a threat in every major, not only because he is Federer but also because he is only 30, and I don't mean the only sarcastically at all. I mean it seriously. He is not a grandpa in any sense as you call him. Maybe by the time he is 35 or 40 I would agree with your statement. But not quite yet.

Click to expand...

I can agree that I over-exaggerated on that one, however Fed is reduced from being a dominant force in tennis to having a slamless year and being merely a "threat" and "outside contender", a number of people on this forum want to contribute that entirely to the current field and act like 24-25 year old Fed wouldn't have his chances against 24 year old Novak and 24-25 year old Nadal(aside from FO obviously), I happen to have a much higher opinion on Fed playing at the peak of his powers.

I definitely also agree with this, however there's one issue I'd like to adress that I think no one did here. Most of Nadal's wins over Fed on HC came in Miami and it's such a specific surface that I'd even go as far as to say that it might even be worse for Fed to play Nadal than clay.

I know you might consider it to be a stretch but let's look at their matches there, two of Nadal wins in Miami over Fed were beatdowns and third one was supposed to be one before a miraculous come back from the dead for Roger. Let's imagine for a moment that 2005 Miami final wasn't a best of five(like it isn't today), that would be 3 straight set beatdowns Nadal gave Fed there out of 3 matches played.

I mean even this year look at how Fed faired against Nadal in Miami compared to Madrid(I know not the best example considering you could make a similar argument for it) and RG(better example).

Of course that has no relation to Dubai match (reasonably fast HC) which was a big win for Nadal considering all the circumstances.

Click to expand...

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking. The only reason I can think of is the same reason Djokovic has never won Cinci - bad luck. I'm sure Djokovic could win cinci but it's always eluded him, the US Open would have been the same if he had lost again this year. Maybe Nadal has just had the wrong guy at the wrong time when he's been in a Miami final. Plus looking at who he's had - Federer, Davydenko (who has a big advantage on hardcourts against Nadal) and Djokovic who also has had the beating of Nadal on a hardcourt, and this year had the beating of him everywhere. If he got Murray in a Miami final he might win it.

That's what I was thinking. The only reason I can think of is the same reason Djokovic has never won Cinci - bad luck. I'm sure Djokovic could win cinci but it's always eluded him, the US Open would have been the same if he had lost again this year. Maybe Nadal has just had the wrong guy at the wrong time when he's been in a Miami final. Plus looking at who he's had - Federer, Davydenko (who has a big advantage on hardcourts against Nadal) and Djokovic who also has had the beating of Nadal on a hardcourt, and this year had the beating of him everywhere. If he got Murray in a Miami final he might win it.

Click to expand...

This is another good point, just like you brought up Hamburg where Federer does really well and has even defeated Nadal on clay, but has yet to do so at the French.

could 'easily' have been 3-2 if fed had not squandered those MPs in rome !

Click to expand...

Federer should have won AO in 4 sets really, a couple of years earlier maybe he would have. I do think he played very well (apart from his serving) but wasn't quite as consistant and didn't have as much killer instinct as even in 2007. Also he started off a bit badly where even on clay in RG 2006 he started off great - side effect of Nadal getting to him mentally, as well as age.

3-2 in 5 sets matches is close. Miami 2005 Federer was huge favourite for, but Rome 2006 was against a very good Nadal on clay, and he might have even won that if it wasn't a tiebreak, who knows? Wimbledon 2007 nadal was close to his best on grass, don't think he played that much better in 2008, and not as well in 2010.

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

Click to expand...

Well maybe it's not such a good surface in general for Nadal but a good one in his specific match-up with Fed? Similar as Cincy is the best surface possible for him to play Nadal despite the fact that he never won Cincy either.

It is strange to me however, looking at Nadal's succes on clay and his playing style in general you'd expect Miami would be the first masters tourney he'd win aside from CC masters. I mean no way would I predict Nadal would have won an indoor HC masters like Madrid so early in his career but still not to this day bag a Miami title.

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

Click to expand...

Just more of the same delusion around here. They think Federer would have better odds when it took him so late to even become formidable compared to Nadal. Oh, and we know Novak is no good compared to Roddick, Safin, Hewitt LOL

ROFL... Look at that poll result.. Yea Im sure Fed would just swat Djokovic and Nadal away like flies and they would have no shot at #1 in the world.

Afterall, We all just this by Fed's domination of inferiority of 2004-2007 and not his domination over Djokovic and Nadal which are light years ahead of anyone at that time. Nevermind the fact, this Djokovic is having arguably the greatest season ever and greater then any season Fed produced against LESSER competition.. Nevermind the fact, Fed can't handle Nadal and now he would have to deal with nadal everywheres not just clay ROFL!!! Yep.. Fed would EASILY be #1 and Djokovic and Nadal wouldn't stand a chance.

That has to be the most ludicrous thing I've seen. -this place should be renamed to Federer-Warehouse.com. I guess it must have been Federer's domination over Roddick that sealed the deal in the poll results.

Click to expand...

Oh how I wish SetSampras AKA GameSampras was still around......oh wait

Sorry for the shameless bump for the normal fans, but I couldn't resist , that's my trolling for the day done. As well as this topic I would say

Federer would have two top players (Novak, Nadal) that he would be losing to.

Novak could only lose to Nadal.

Nadal coudl only lose to Novak.

But somehow everyone convince themselves that Roger would be #1?

Click to expand...

what a senseless post !! lolzz..novak just lost to even 30 yr old fed..he wud definitely lose to 24 yr old fed..and when a 30 yr old fed is the no.1 now having nadal at 26 and novak at 25,a 24 yr old fed wud definitely be no.1

I would agree with this but for one problem. If Miami is such a good surface for Nadal, why has Nadal never won it.

Click to expand...

To answer an age old question.

That particular surface is really bad for Federer when he is playing against Nadal. Not only is it high bouncing, it is dreadfully slow which means Federer cannot hit through the court on it. Federer doesn't have the consistent power that the other big hitters have. This lets Nadal just run balls down all day and frustrate Federer to no end.

However, the times Nadal has lost at Miami are really mostly due to bad luck. He ran into an absolutely on fire Djokovic, Roddick, and Davydenko in the years he was set to win Miami. And the thing is that those three guys both have more firepower than Federer does in his game (when Roddick is playing the correct version of his game), and can penetrate the court easier. Nadal being a guy that doesn't hit all that hard really can't hit through the court, so the ball just sits up for these guys to just whail on all day.

Which is why I always find it so amazing Nadal has been able to do so well on the Plexicushion at the AO. Because really, that's not a surface he really likes at all, mainly because he can't penetrate the court well enough since it is slow as molasses, and the ball doesn't bounce high enough so his shots are mostly sitters on the court. He wins really mainly on just pure determination and athleticism here, unlike at Wimbledon and RG.